If you could only take one coin from your collection...

[Nicholas 51]

What coin would you keep from your collection if you were only allowed one choice?

[Rob 3,152]

Too difficult. Collections are assembled to provide a nice aesthetic mix where one coin complements the next. Much easier to say which coin you would remove to improve the collection, but that's just a reflection of the ease with which you can fill gaps as opposed to finding the right (nice) coin.

[scott 144]

thats a toughie, got some rare stuff

do I go Satin 19?

do i go 1858 small date farthing

1879 narrow penny

my Charles I york shilling.

on balance probably

because it is the only one

[Debbie 58]

Well if you'er talking "the only one" well that's most of my collection

However this has got to take some beating ( to me personally ) its a love token found on ebay and traceable back through my husband's family tree. His mother's name Ayling and the place Alverstoke adjacent Portsmouth to where the family originated.

[1949threepence 3,367]

What coin would you keep from your collection if you were only allowed one choice?

If I was absolutely forced into that situation, I still honestly wouldn't know.

Probably just grab one at random.

[TomGoodheart 401]

Too difficult. Collections are assembled to provide a nice aesthetic mix where one coin complements the next.

Quite. And being hammered, each of my coins is unique as I can't just buy a S.whatever in gVF as a replacement. Many would take considerable time and effort to even find another of the same design and where they have been published or are from a particular collection, again, once they are gone .. that's it.

I guess if forced to choose I'd pick the most expensive since if I sold it I could buy a handful more coins! But as to favourites... that changes depending on my mood I'm afraid.

As to which I'd happily sell today for the price I paid for it .. now, that's a much easier choice!!!

[jaggy 528]

I gave this some thought.

I could probably select 10 or 20 coins which are my favourites but it would be impossible to select just one. I don't have a single preferred coin.

[Nick 329]

I gave this some thought.

I could probably select 10 or 20 coins which are my favourites but it would be impossible to select just one. I don't have a single preferred coin.

I am the same. I could probably select my favourite 20 or 30, but beyond that I couldn't choose.

[Peckris 579]

It would be very very very difficult to choose just one. But the GEF (AUNC?) 1797 twopence would make a strong case for itself as it's probably my favourite design.

[Accumulator 52]

At the risk of boring all those that have seen it before, I wouldn't struggle to choose:

[Nicholas 51]

http://www.rascoins.com/Coinpagelarge.cfm?iname=313.jpg&coinid=10692&piclib=ED109

Whilst I breathe I have hope .. !

[Debbie 58]

And the best thing of all is that you don't necessarily have to spend very much to come by a coin that you would never part with!

[Peter 615]

It would have to be 3 my pair of 1698 farthings and a 1967 vf 1d

[Rob 3,152]

It would have to be 3 my pair of 1698 farthings and a 1967 vf 1d

Rare coin. Most never saw the light of day.

[Peckris 579]

It would have to be 3 my pair of 1698 farthings and a 1967 vf 1d

Oh wow, oh wow, oh WOW Mind you, have you tested it for gold - I believe there's a gold one out there somewhere?

[Peter 615]

Peck

I would take you we could bore each other.

[pies 33]

At the risk of boring all those that have seen it before, I wouldn't struggle to choose:

At the risk of sounding stupid how does a coin end up with a reverse which wasnt used for another five years

[Nick 329]

At the risk of boring all those that have seen it before, I wouldn't struggle to choose:

At the risk of sounding stupid how does a coin end up with a reverse which wasnt used for another five years

If you think that is strange, check out this proof sixpence. The reverse is dated 1839 but the obverse is the third young head circa 1880. Rarity R⁵ in ESC (No. 1738).

[jaggy 528]

At the risk of boring all those that have seen it before, I wouldn't struggle to choose:

At the risk of sounding stupid how does a coin end up with a reverse which wasnt used for another five years

If you think that is strange, check out this proof sixpence. The reverse is dated 1839 but the obverse is the third young head circa 1880. Rarity R⁵ in ESC (No. 1738).

Yep, I saw that. I would love to bid on it but would probably have to take out a second mortgage to actually win it.

[Peckris 579]

Peck

I would take you we could bore each other.

I'm sure Mrs Peter would have something to say about that

At the risk of boring all those that have seen it before, I wouldn't struggle to choose:

At the risk of sounding stupid how does a coin end up with a reverse which wasnt used for another five years

Not stupid at all. We had a long thread a year or so ago where we discussed this very thing. There was no firm conclusion reached, but the mystery is how there are both extremely rare 1922 and possibly unique 1926 ME pennies with that reverse. There was a new reverse introduced with the 1925ME halfpenny, and they also experimented with a modified reverse on 1925 sixpences. So the big question is not WHY, but WHEN. The main 'why' is - if that reverse was being experimented with as early as 1922 - that it didn't get put into general use until 1927. However, bear in mind that no pennies were minted in 1923,24,25, and there was only an interim low mintage in 1926. It's quite possible that with all the work being done to get the 1927 issues ready, the penny reverse was made low priority. Halfpennies were a higher priority with continuous demand, hence the 1925 reverse, and farthings weren't affected. So I'm guessing they experimented with pennies over a long low-demand period.

[Rob 3,152]

"Victoria Proof Sixpence error 1839, Young Head, S-3912/3908 type, reeded edge, medal-rotation die alignment, "Mint Error PR65 Muled w/KM-757 Obverse" NGC, amber-gold iridescent toning over a silvery gray base. First one we have encountered, dated 1839 on reverse but struck from an obverse die used for the 3rd Head style (of 1880-87) with really crisply engraved hair. Very rare."

This description of an error doesn't take into consideration the later production of 1839 proof sets. This coin has to parallel the 1839 set halfpenny where they are known as a straight 1839 and recut 1841 & 1843 dies. The use of a third head die would suggest that the 1839 sets may have been produced up to the introduction of the 1887, and interestingly therefore may have both preceded and succeeded the 1853 sets. I don't think it is an error.

[jaggy 528]

"Victoria Proof Sixpence error 1839, Young Head, S-3912/3908 type, reeded edge, medal-rotation die alignment, "Mint Error PR65 Muled w/KM-757 Obverse" NGC, amber-gold iridescent toning over a silvery gray base. First one we have encountered, dated 1839 on reverse but struck from an obverse die used for the 3rd Head style (of 1880-87) with really crisply engraved hair. Very rare."

This description of an error doesn't take into consideration the later production of 1839 proof sets. This coin has to parallel the 1839 set halfpenny where they are known as a straight 1839 and recut 1841 & 1843 dies. The use of a third head die would suggest that the 1839 sets may have been produced up to the introduction of the 1887, and interestingly therefore may have both preceded and succeeded the 1853 sets. I don't think it is an error.

Interesting. I just bought an 1839 proof sixpence in the London Auction:

Sixpence 1839 Plain Edge Proof NGC PF64

I will have to look closely at it when it arrives.

[Rob 3,152]

"Victoria Proof Sixpence error 1839, Young Head, S-3912/3908 type, reeded edge, medal-rotation die alignment, "Mint Error PR65 Muled w/KM-757 Obverse" NGC, amber-gold iridescent toning over a silvery gray base. First one we have encountered, dated 1839 on reverse but struck from an obverse die used for the 3rd Head style (of 1880-87) with really crisply engraved hair. Very rare."

This description of an error doesn't take into consideration the later production of 1839 proof sets. This coin has to parallel the 1839 set halfpenny where they are known as a straight 1839 and recut 1841 & 1843 dies. The use of a third head die would suggest that the 1839 sets may have been produced up to the introduction of the 1887, and interestingly therefore may have both preceded and succeeded the 1853 sets. I don't think it is an error.

Interesting. I just bought an 1839 proof sixpence in the London Auction:

Sixpence 1839 Plain Edge Proof NGC PF64

I will have to look closely at it when it arrives.

Unfortunately, unlike the halfpenny, the date is on the wrong side. Otherwise it would have been possible to give an earliest possible terminal date for the sets. I note that the die axis is upright on the 3rd head in Heritage which is unlike the early pieces. Similarly the 1839/41 proof halfpenny has an inverted die axis compared to the normal upright for the series. I wonder if they are contemporary?

[argentumandcoins 70]

"Victoria Proof Sixpence error 1839, Young Head, S-3912/3908 type, reeded edge, medal-rotation die alignment, "Mint Error PR65 Muled w/KM-757 Obverse" NGC, amber-gold iridescent toning over a silvery gray base. First one we have encountered, dated 1839 on reverse but struck from an obverse die used for the 3rd Head style (of 1880-87) with really crisply engraved hair. Very rare."

This description of an error doesn't take into consideration the later production of 1839 proof sets. This coin has to parallel the 1839 set halfpenny where they are known as a straight 1839 and recut 1841 & 1843 dies. The use of a third head die would suggest that the 1839 sets may have been produced up to the introduction of the 1887, and interestingly therefore may have both preceded and succeeded the 1853 sets. I don't think it is an error.

I would agree that the 39 sets were in production up until the 1887 sets and even after 1887 would they still have been available via the mint?

It is conceivable that the dies could have been used up until the death of Victoria as the sets were "made to order" for want of a better term and the Una £5 would probably have been as desirable then as it is now.

[Rob 3,152]

"Victoria Proof Sixpence error 1839, Young Head, S-3912/3908 type, reeded edge, medal-rotation die alignment, "Mint Error PR65 Muled w/KM-757 Obverse" NGC, amber-gold iridescent toning over a silvery gray base. First one we have encountered, dated 1839 on reverse but struck from an obverse die used for the 3rd Head style (of 1880-87) with really crisply engraved hair. Very rare."

This description of an error doesn't take into consideration the later production of 1839 proof sets. This coin has to parallel the 1839 set halfpenny where they are known as a straight 1839 and recut 1841 & 1843 dies. The use of a third head die would suggest that the 1839 sets may have been produced up to the introduction of the 1887, and interestingly therefore may have both preceded and succeeded the 1853 sets. I don't think it is an error.

I would agree that the 39 sets were in production up until the 1887 sets and even after 1887 would they still have been available via the mint?

It is conceivable that the dies could have been used up until the death of Victoria as the sets were "made to order" for want of a better term and the Una £5 would probably have been as desirable then as it is now.

Which explains the number of varieties of the Una £5, whereby a new die would be engraved as there were no corresponding currency dies to recut. Have we just reinvented the wheel or does anyone have documentary evidence from Mint Records etc to back this up?